I don't think it would be a problem to add the words. It would not be a problem to be even more specific and explicit.
Chief Justice Dickson interpreted what the words mean and what they can be used to mean in order to sustain the constitutionality of the provision. He set a very high standard. Every time this legislation has come before a court for judicial review of a given decision, it has been that standard that has been invoked.
As I said, Professor Moon, who has his own views on these matters, has conceded that in practice, the cases brought by the Canadian Human Rights Commission before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal have all been focused on this sort of extreme speech. It still is very helpful to make it explicit so that somebody reading the act will know how it's going to be interpreted as well.